Match 2: Aust v Eng t20 tri-series at Hobart Feb 7, 2018

[Mr Spock!]

The ball on the ground and the Channel 9 team says he caught it....and wonder why Maxwell isn't walking off after being given Not Out.

 

[blaza88z]

Steve Smith is having a good little chuckle

 

[TIGER14]

Has Clarke had a bet on England.
Even if he has got a finger tomorrow it's 100% touching the ground first.

 

[blaza88z]

Your fingers may very well be wedged under it but when you see a still of the ball touching the ground.. not much the umpires can do

 

[hineyrulz]

Correct call IMO, that one though looked more out than Smiths.

 

[Bazal]

Your fingers may very well be wedged under it but when you see a still of the ball touching the ground.. not much the umpires can do

The main thing is that it touches the grass before Roy controls it, doesn't matter if he's Tasmanian and has 12 fingers under it.

I am surprised they overruled the soft signal though

 

[Mr Spock!]

Has Clarke had a bet on England.
Even if he has got a finger tomorrow it's 100% touching the ground first.

Yeah Clarke sounding like a complete clown.

Like he'd be happy to be given out on that.

 

[ANTiLAG]

You attacked a poster for grammar that was perfectly acceptable because you had nothing else to offer. Since then you have demonstrated that your own grasp of the English language is bordering on abysmal. Thus, you are scorned for both the original unimaginative attack AND your own awful writing skills.

Had you not been deluded and boring enough to bring up grammar originally, you would be free to post poorly without attracting scorn

Nah. It's three thousand words too short and far too well written.

As for the game, I think their quellers are too qualified and will be too good for us in the end.

Unless you were deliberately trying to be ironic, you may want to try some of these adjectives next time;

instead of 'too short" try concise or succinct; and

instead of "far too well written" try articulate, eloquent, or intelligible.

But regardless, you ought to have quotation marks around "quellers".

* Perhaps you mean "more qualified"? However, as there are no actual qualifications to bowling that I am aware of (unlike say coaching) and given someone playing in the match either qualifies to bowl or not by virtue of ICC clearance which isn't indicative of the level of playing ability but mere bowling action legitimacy; if you mean (some of) their bowlers are better overall than Australia's to quell high or fast run scoring rates, just say so: e.g. "I think their 'quellers' are better (than Straya's) and will be too good for us in the end".

You may think your grammar was perfectly acceptable. It is not. "Quellers" without speechmarks. "Too qualified"?

It is full of errors, and yet ironically you're attacking my grammar initially. You ironically attack my lack of concision, but are wordy with ""far too well written". And "too short" of what exactly, my minimum post word count?

So go have a sook about something else Bazal. You're boring me. But if you want to try and scorn me and my writing, go for it. But I don't think that you have the skills to do it successfully without providing avenues for retort. Just my opinion.

 

[blaza88z]

This "soft signal" holds as much weight as in the NRL when the ref goes upstairs with no sighting on whether or not the player has control of the ball when trying to ground and there are 3 blokes holding him up, no way he could see from that far away in detail whether or not the ball was a controlled catch or not and it shouldn't be like that, they're being forced to make a decision on something which they don't really have an idea about, there should be another option "I have no idea, I can't see it"

I know it's a different sport but in the NRL when neither the on field ref or the video ref can come to a valid conclusion they simply go with the initial decision, which was initially a guess, it's needs to be looked at

 

[Bazal]

You may think your grammar was perfectly acceptable. It is not. "Quellers" without speechmarks. "Too qualified"?

It is full of errors, and yet ironically you're attacking my grammar initially. You ironically attack my lack of concision, but are wordy with ""far too well written". And "too short" of what exactly, my minimum post word count?

So go have a sook about something else Bazal. You're boring me. But if you want to try and scorn me and my writing. Go for it. But I don't think you have the skills to do it. Just my opinion.

Wooooooooooosh!

And nothing of value was added

 

[TheParraboy]

Love to know KPs thoughts on that non catch...

Good mates with Maxy, he would have said not out

 

[hineyrulz]

STFU Clarke you cretin, only someone with brain damage would watch that shit.

 

[hineyrulz]

Reckon the Show is a good chance for the MOTM.

 

[TheParraboy]

very close tubby, about a metre and a half

 

[Bazal]

Not a great shot, that

 

[blaza88z]

That was a horrible shot lol

 

[ANTiLAG]

Wooooooooooosh!

And nothing of value was added

I guess the obvious part of you accusing me of attacking grammar first, and the quote of who started it just flew over your head. Maybe I needed to spell that part out to you, instead of assuming that you got the obvious reference. Here's a hint, I quoted the entire conversation.

But continue your sook and flurry of insults.

 

[hineyrulz]

Another poor shot, we are doing our best to keep them in it.

 

[Bazal]

I guess the obvious part of you accusing me of attacking grammar first, and the quote of who started it just flew over your head. Maybe I needed to spell that part out to you, instead of assuming that you got the obvious reference.

Have you got Alzheimers?

Or are you claiming that, through some kind of warping of the space time continuum, the attacks you made on posters' grammar in the Test series was precluded by posts you made tonight?

Qualified intellectual my arse! I've caught more intellectual crayfish

 

[hineyrulz]

Maxy is going down swinging no matter what.